Invalidity · first instance · 2020-08-12
000110021
Contested design: 006581245-0013
Outcome
The invalidity application against RCD No 6581245-0013 is rejected, and the applicants must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(it)
1. La domanda di dichiarazione di nullità del disegno/modello comunitario registrato n 6581245-0013 è respinta. 2. I richiedenti sopportano l’onere delle spese sostenute dal titolare, fissate a 400 EUR.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Dado Ceramica s.r.l.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Sicilia, 21, San Giovanni in Prisceto (BO) Italia; Antica Ceramica Rubiera s.r.l., Via Salvaterra, 18/A, 42048 Rubiera (RE) Italia; Star-Gres, Ceramiczna 5, 26-200 Końskie, Polonia
Represented by
Stefano Querzè
Holder · RCD owner
Italcer S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Emilia Ovest, 53/A, 42048 Rubiera (RE) Italia
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
tile model "Ferrara" shown in the applicant's undated catalog and alleged to have been sold from 2006
Ferrara · Star-Gres catalog and invoice · disclosed 2006-11-30
tile model "Savona" shown in the applicant's undated catalog and alleged prior sale
Savona · Star-Gres catalog and invoice · disclosed 2006-11-30
tile model "Villa Toscana" shown in the applicant's undated catalog
Villa Toscana · Star-Gres catalog
A tile
UK design No. 1051901 · DesignView / United Kingdom design register · disclosed 1988-06-27
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicants sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on earlier tile models Ferrara, Savona, Villa Toscana and UK design D4.
- ›They argued similar tiles had been produced, advertised and sold since at least 2006 through catalog pages, invoices, price lists and web references.
- ›The holder filed no observations in response.
- ›The Division held the catalog, invoice, price list, links and file-property screenshot did not objectively prove disclosure of D1 to D3 under Article 7.
- ›Although D4 was validly disclosed, the contested tile created a different overall impression because of its mosaic square tesserae and grout lines, so the application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI – ALOISI
- MemberBirgit FILTENBORG
- MemberJessica LEWIS
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| itItalian | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128596 vs Griptel AB | 2025-07-17 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000124436 vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd. | 2024-11-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121100 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121138 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000121099 vs TABB Interior Systems B.V. | 2024-01-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120379 vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag | 2023-10-26 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000120958 vs Yimei Zhu | 2023-07-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |
| 000119859 vs BoZarc | 2023-06-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 25 | 7 |